Current Events > Ahmaud Arbery Murder Case

(+) Yeah! (+)

I thought it was just some BS that the 2 guys phoned in that the Arbery was entering a construction site...

---

CableZL posted...

I question that claim, too. Seems a bit convenient for him to have been filming it without having any prior involvement.

I sure in hell don't believe it. Not that is sways the case all that much in any way but...yea...just lol

---

CableZL posted...

And it's funny how you conveniently ignore this video of an actual Georgia lawyer explaining why they didn't have legal justification to perform a citizen's arrest.

Are YOU in this topic? Or is your actual interest just ignoring the parts that don't support your argument?

I conveniently ignored a video that I responded about. LMFAO. How are you consistently so obviously wrong and oblivious?(that's rhetorical)

Post #122...

Conker posted...

Thank you!

Dudes are fucked.

One question that I see ignored often...why did the driver get out with his gun in the first place?(thats rhetorical because he had no reason to)

Rolling down a window, allowing the guy in the back of the truck to talk to the man, or just getting out without your weapon knowing someone in the back of the truck has a weapon if it wasnt just verbal. Those would all have been more logical/sensible things if they truly believed they were just well intentioned people stopping a criminal.

I legit think the lawyer has some strong points but he is absolutely 100% wrong about a couple statements he makes himself. His interpretation and examples ignore the entire context as well. Such as his example about jumping in a truck with a shotgun with your friends...it ignores any knowledge of a crime or performing a citizens arrest but he treats it as if just doing that unprompted for shittles and giggles is the same thing when we KNOW they had knowledge of a possible crime taking place.

NOWHERE does the Georgia code about citizen's arrest say it is ONLY if a Felony is taking place like that lawyer says. As I said numerous posts ago, it actually has an "If a felony..." statement that would suggest it encompasses more than just felonies. So where does he get off saying that?

---

Conker posted...

Post #122...

I legit think the lawyer has some strong points but he is agsolutely 100% wrong about a couple statements he makes himself. His interpretation and examples ignore the entire context as well. Such as his example about jumping in a truck with a shotgun with your friends...it ignores any knowledge of a crime or performing a citizens arrest but he treats it as if just doing that unprompted for shittles and giggles is the same thing when we KNOW they had knowledge of a possible crime taking place.

NOWHERE does the Georgia code about citizen's arrest say it is ONLY if a Felony is taking place like that lawyer says. As I said numerous posts ago, it actually has an "If a felony..." statement that would suggest it encompasses more than just felonies. So where does he get off saying that?

The law specifies "if it's a felony" in the context of permitting a citizen to pursue a fleeing suspect.

The Mcmichaels had no knowledge of a crime being committed in the first place in order to perform a citizen's arrest.

There was no crime being committed and again, the law does not support citizens arrests based solely on what someone thinks. It specifically mentions the crime being done in the person's presence or immediate knowledge.

The crime wasn't committed in the presence of the Mcmichaels, nor did they have immediate knowledge of the crime being committed.

The fact that no crime was committed supports that fact. It's simple logic. If no crime was committed, then a crime was not committed in their presence, nor did they have immediate knowledge of a crime being committed.

---

Conker posted...

Post #122...

I legit think the lawyer has some strong points but he is agsolutely 100% wrong about a couple statements he makes himself. His interpretation and examples ignore the entire context as well. Such as his example about jumping in a truck with a shotgun with your friends...it ignores any knowledge of a crime or performing a citizens arrest but he treats it as if just doing that unprompted for shittles and giggles is the same thing when we KNOW they had knowledge of a possible crime taking place.

NOWHERE does the Georgia code about citizen's arrest say it is ONLY if a Felony is taking place like that lawyer says. As I said numerous posts ago, it actually has an "If a felony..." statement that would suggest it encompasses more than just felonies. So where does he get off saying that?

Thats true, i read it up and you can citizens arrest for something like a purse snatching.

Arbery was also trespassing. ** in video he is walking down the street, not jogging. He looks around and dashes into garage. Comes out goes in house. Neighbor can be seen coming out and yelling at him, Arbery runs and shortly after mcmichaels pursue.

Cable asked where Arbery was confronted, i told him its at 4:20 in op.

Some lawyer says you can't, an ex cop says you can. It is two men with their own opinions.

Also the guy filming is a neighbor several houses down who joined pursuit. He missed critical footage unfortunately ofc.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Thats true, i read it up and you can citizens arrest for something like a purse snatching.

Arbery was also trespassing.

Cable asked where Arbery was confronted, i told him its at 4:20 in op.

Some lawyer says you can't, an ex cop says you can. It is two men with their own opinions.

Also the guy filming is a neighbor several houses down who joined pursuit. He missed critical footage unfortunately ofc.

Yes, if you see a purse snatching happen, you can perform a citizen's arrest.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor, not a crime, so that isn't relevant here. Actually, the only relevance of that is that witnessing someone trespassing does not give you legal justification to perform a citizen's arrest because it isn't a crime.

---

CableZL posted...

Yes, if you see a purse snatching happen, you can perform a citizen's arrest.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor, not a crime, so that isn't relevant here. Actually, the only relevance of that is that witnessing someone trespassing does not give you legal justification to perform a citizen's arrest because it isn't a crime.

Trepassing, unlawful entry, is a crime. Snatching a purse is a misdemeanor so that is relevant here.

** edit you said misdemeanors arent crimes also. They are

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html

Criminal trespassing is a crime. Simply trespassing is a misdemeanor.

---

CableZL posted...

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html

Criminal trespassing is a crime. Simply trespassing is a misdemeanor.

You are arguing this with the wrong guy.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Trepassing, unlawful entry, is a crime. Snatching a purse is a misdemeanor so that is relevant here. **because some were claiming you can only citizens arrest for felonies. Thats false.

** edit you said misdemeanors arent crimes also. They are

A purse snatching would fall under the robbery statute in Georgia

---

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-8/article-2/16-8-40

(a) A person commits the offense of robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another:

(1) By use of force;

(2) By intimidation, by the use of threat or coercion, or by placing such person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury to himself or to another; or

(3) By sudden snatching.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of robbery shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code section, any person who commits the offense of robbery against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.

---

The man who owns the empty house said nothing was taken or disturbed at all.

So it's a misdemeanor

---

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html

Actually, the statute even says criminal trespass is just a misdemeanor.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Holy misleading statute, Batman. I wonder if that bit has been updated recently at all.

---

CableZL posted...

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html

Actually, the statute even says criminal trespass is just a misdemeanor.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Holy misleading statute, Batman. I wonder if that bit has been updated recently at all.

I think you are right actually, Cable. In Georgia you are only allowed to pursue if its a felony. But ifa misdemeanor happens in your view or immediate knowledge, you may arrest on site.

This is very shaky.

Keith_Valentine posted...

I think you are right actually, Cable. In Georgia you are only allowed to pursue if its a felony. But ifa misdemeanor happens in your view or immediate knowledge, you may arrest on site.

This is very shaky.

Yeah, after actually reading the statutes involved and explanations on multiple web sites, my conclusion is now

\O/

Either way, I don't think the situation rose to a level that justifies them killing him. We'll see what happens in the court case. The only necessary action in this case, imo, was essentially telling him not to go into the house and possibly calling he police.

---

CableZL posted...

Yeah, after actually reading the statutes involved and explanations on multiple web sites, my conclusion is now

\O/

Either way, I don't think the situation rose to a level that justifies them killing him. We'll see what happens in the court case. The only necessary action in this case, imo, was essentially telling him not to go into the house and possibly calling he police.

Agreed. Vigilante justice is not good, especially in 2020 with the combination of mental illness, guns, general tension, and a violent society. Weve always been violent, i get that.

So lets say that this guy who was arrested was asked by the home owner to watch the construction site. The owner tells him he has video of a black guy going on the property a few months back.

Then the guy gets a call and the homeowner says that there is someone there right now. He's got him on video. Home owner asks guy to scare him off. He doesn't want people on his job site. He's trespassing. Don't do it again.

So guy arms up because this is America and the rural south. He gets his pa because who knows what can happen even if I do have a gun. He also calls his dad because he wants back.

Now they go cruising. They know generally what this guy looks like. They are going to find him and scare him a little. After all, the home has no trespassing signs and this black guy went on the property twice! .

Amazingly they find the guy. They got a call from someone saying they think they saw a black guy running away or maybe they just get lucky. So they get ahead of him park the truck and the guy gets out. Black guy comes running right up to him. The guy yells at the black jogger to hold up. Black guy goes straight into attitude. Maybe makes reference to the gun and what the hell are these good ol' boys looking to do?
Don't go on that property mister!
Screw you white boy. I wasn't even on it. I don't know what you are talking about
We got video. You been on it twice.
Black guy gives more attitude and then, even though guy has a gun he rolls up on him. Maybe even makes a grab for the gun or takes a swing. Guy fires and misses. But the black guy keeps coming. The guy yells at his dad to help but he's still in the truck and old. Not a fast mover. The black guy is coming right at him. Yelling that he's going to take that gun and kill him two jackasses. The guy is scared. He reflexively pulls the trigger.

He then calls 911. Why did he have to go for the gun? Why couldn't he have admitted he was trespassing. It all happened so fast. I'll I know is that he said he was going to take my gun and kill me and my dad.

Murder charge...not guilty.

---

I also question, if a citizen's arrest is legally justified in this situation, is it even OK for a citizen to use guns to aid in the arrest.

I would hope it would only be deemed acceptable or there was a danger to the safety of the person making the arrest.

Choosing to use guns to follow and arrest a person who is running away from a trespassing situation is just asking for an unnecessary escalation, imo.

---

CableZL posted...

The law specifies "if it's a felony" in the context of permitting a citizen to pursue a fleeing suspect.

Where are you getting that, because I've not seen it anywhere. The only time it mentions a fleeing suspect is the judgement call for a person to decide if they can make an arrest for a felony and they're fleeing. That's it from what I've seen. Which just means they have less strict requirements to make a citizen's arrest if it's a felony.

It's like saying, "You can perform a citizen's arrest if you know of a crime. If the crime is murder you can make that call based on just hearing a gunshot." If that's the case, and you didn't hear a gunshot, it doesn't mean you can't perform a citizen's arrest. It means if you only heard a gunshot, you can perform a citizen's arrest under the thinking a murder has been committed. Just like you have less strict judgement requirements to perform a citizen's arrest if a felony has been committed and someone is fleeing. It doesn't mean those are the conditions in all situations to perform a citizen's arrest like you keep suggesting.

The Mcmichaels had no knowledge of a crime being committed in the first place in order to perform a citizen's arrest.

We know they had knowledge of what appears to have been a crime. Is trespassing a crime? Casing a construction site? Then running away when confronted can appear to be a crime and someone sees you take off could be considered immediate knowledge. Those aren't, "Yes or no" statements, they're judgement calls that will be important interpretations in this case. I'm not saying one way or the other because it all depends on the exact wording and context.

There was no crime being committed and again, the law does not support citizens arrests based solely on what someone thinks. It specifically mentions the crime being done in the person's presence or immediate knowledge.

What someone thinks in a situation is considered their immediate knowledge. Especially if they call the cops to inform them of the situation. It's just odd that they'd call the cops to report non-criminal activity and then make chase. Clearly they believed a crime was being committed. Whether that is accurate is not the point that they were performing a citizen's arrest that was based on their immediate knowledge (what they thought) of the situation.

The crime wasn't committed in the presence of the Mcmichaels, nor did they have immediate knowledge of the crime being committed.

The fact that no crime was committed supports that fact. It's simple logic. If no crime was committed, then a crime was not committed in their presence, nor did they have immediate knowledge of a crime being committed.

Again, like I said in prior posts, what is considered "immediate knowledge?" They knew immediately about it when he took off running from the property and began their attempt at arrest. There wasn't a lapse in time where they were informed of this occurrence second-hand. At least based on the videos/articles it appears this could be considered immediate knowledge, but again...I'm not taking absolutes here like you continue to do. I'm just suggesting this is interpreted, and in my mind I'd consider that at least a possibility.

---

CableZL posted...

I also question, if a citizen's arrest is legally justified in this situation, is it even OK for a citizen to use guns to aid in the arrest.

I would hope it would only be deemed acceptable or there was a danger to the safety of the person making the arrest.

Choosing to use guns to follow and arrest a person who is running away from a trespassing situation is just asking for an unnecessary escalation, imo.

This was argued in the video too. I can't confirm exact law but in the video it is stated legally open carrying is not negated by performing a citizen's arrest. They were also not using their weapons to point at or fire warning shots, so there is a difference to "using" guns and "open carrying" guns. The detail matter.

It's funny I'm even arguing the other side because I even think like you do but try to take myself out of my immediate reaction.

For example, if I see anyone with a gun on the street, even just walking...my alert goes up and my radar for potential violence is high. So to me, the simple thought of someone getting out of their truck with the gun means intent to shoot in my brain. It's hard for me to separate the two actions, but the law does make a difference.

Just like me being on someone else's property and having someone approach me, in my mind would require me to say something (anything at all to address the context) and not run.

I'm willing to understand each action that took place to lead to another action, but I also know what is common sense and what I'd do would have been none of them (so it's hard for me to defend any of these guys cuz they all made poor decisions under all circumstances).

---

The cut off text suggests misdemeanors are not grounds to pursue a suspect.

To Cable, was it legal to have guns. Georgia has open carry with a permit, which they had. Also self defense laws, which is part of how they will structure their defense since the video shows Arbery initiating, being aggressive, grappling for gun, punching the shooter.

I would bet the shooter will get off for that reason. This doesnt mean i think he should ftr. I need more info. I could form a decent defense based on that video were i McMichaels attorney. Will that work.. maybe. Depends on many factors in the trial. Zimmerman did worse and got away with it, with less probable cause. Was Trayvon even accused of a crime? I cant remember. I might be wrong.

Conker posted...

This was argued in the video too. I can't confirm exact law but in the video it is stated legally open carrying is not negated by performing a citizen's arrest. They were also not using their weapons to point at or fire warning shots, so there is a difference to "using" guns and "open carrying" guns. The detail matter.

It's funny I'm even arguing the other side because I even think like you do but try to take myself out of my immediate reaction.

For example, if I see anyone with a gun on the street, even just walking...my alert goes up and my radar for potential violence is high. So to me, the simple thought of someone getting out of their truck with the gun means intent to shoot in my brain. It's hard for me to separate the two actions, but the law does make a difference.

Just like me being on someone else's property and having someone approach me, in my mind would require me to say something (anything at all to address the context) and not run.

I'm willing to understand each action that took place to lead to another action, but I also know what is common sense and what I'd do would have been none of them (so it's hard for me to defend any of these guys cuz they all made poor decisions under all circumstances).

I said something similar and took some predictable shit for it. Post deleted for 'victim blaming'. Basically if someone confronted me and i was innocent, i wouldnt run. Even if i were guilty but they had no proof i wouldnt run.

And if confronted with guns i would be very calm and answer all questions and stay still. If you have done nothing, it resolves itself. These moments on the brink of violence get decided in seconds. Some people claim they were out to murder Arbery and he had no choice to fight back, i could destroy that argument. I think i did earlier itt. To make it quick, if they wanted him dead outright, he would have been immediately. He would never have gotten close. This is obvious to me.

Keith_Valentine posted...

The cut off text suggests misdemeanors are not grounds to pursue a suspect.

To Cable, was it legal to have guns. Georgia has open carry with a permit, which they had. Also self defense laws, which is part of how they will structure their defense since the video shows Arbery initiating, being aggressive, grappling for gun, punching the shooter.

I would bet the shooter will get off for that reason. This doesnt mean i think he should ftr. I need more info. I could form a decent defense based on that video were i McMichaels attorney, painting the victim as the aggressor. Will that work.. maybe. Depends on many factors in the trial. Zimmerman did worse and got away with it, with less probable cause. Was Trayvon even accused of a crime? I cant remember. I might be wrong.

I honestly believe they're reading the same code I am and interpreting it incorrectly in regards to pursuit, which it does not state anything about. The "felony and escaping or attempting to escape" part is only to define the person can make the decision to arrest them under different grounds (again, less strict requirements).

---

They are not only guilty of murder, but also the whole towns establishment needs to be investigated for misconduct

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/261-politics/78685085

Kastrada posted...

The man who owns the empty house said nothing was taken or disturbed at all.

So it's a misdemeanor

notice that people are ignoring this fact. I wonder why???

---

Bishop9800 posted...

notice that people are ignoring this fact. I wonder why???

I dont think anyone ignored that, Bishop. We talked about it. Helllooooooo in there Bishoppppppp. Post #169 for starters

Keith_Valentine posted...

I said something similar and took some predictable shit for it. Post deleted for 'victim blaming'. Basically if someone confronted me and i was innocent, i wouldnt run. Even if i were guilty but they had no proof i wouldnt run.

And if confronted with guns i would be very calm and answer all questions and stay still. If you have done nothing, it resolves itself. These moments on the brink of violence get decided in seconds. Some people claim they were out to murder Arbery and he had no choice to fight back, i could destroy that argument. I think i did earlier itt. To make it quick, if they wanted him dead outright, he would have been immediately. He would never have gotten close. This is obvious to me.

I agree with this thinking.

It just doesn't add up why they would even feel the need to get out of the truck. If you had someone in the bed of the truck with a gun, and your only goal is to kill them, why park and get out in the first place? You essentially have a gunner you can keep at a distance from the person you're chasing. Arbery could have jumped up in the bed of the truck or ran to the drivers side before you got out...or various other actions that puts yourself at risk.

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

I dont think anyone ignored that, Bishop. We talked about it. Helllooooooo in there Bishoppppppp. Post #169 for starters

Im talking about people who keep saying that Ahmaud is guilty and the guys who killed him did no crime. Please try to keep up Keith. (I know you're still mad at me for calling you black)

---

Bishop9800 posted...

Im talking about people who keep saying that Ahmaud is guilty and the guys who killed him did no crime. Please try to keep up Keith. (I know you're still mad at me for calling you black)

Pretty sure the poster you quoted was talking to me or just contributing to what we were discussing. So you popping in the middle of people talking and randomly saying 'people are ignoring this. I wonder why' but directing that at no one in the topic is strange. You cant even stop trolling in a topic about Arbery getting killed, without that you have nothing to say.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Pretty sure the poster you quoted was talking to me or just contributing to what we were discussing. So you popping in the middle of people talking and randomly saying 'people are ignoring this. I wonder why' but directing that at no one in the topic is strange. You cant even stop trolling in a topic about Arbery getting killed, without that you have nothing to say.

It makes no difference who he was talking to. He made a statement that i committed on. You're the one getting your panties in a uproar. Now you want to call me a troll when you're one of the biggest ones on here. Once again, like your cellmate to you, Im done with you.


---

Bishop9800 posted...

It makes no difference who he was talking to. He made a statement that i committed on. You're the one getting your panties in a uproar. Now you want to call me a troll when you're one of the biggest ones on here. Once again, like your cellmate to you, Im done with you.

Im not in an uproar, im pointing out your post was irrelevant nonsense and youre a troll. I dont think i have rarely seen you make a post that wasnt sarcastic or ridiculing someone or something.

Tell me how I'm a troll, Bishop. God forbid if you actually make some kinda point i will acknowledge it, but im skeptical. My expectations of you couldnt get much lower.

Conker posted...

To your first question: Under the definition of the law. How isn't it legal to chase someone in a vehicle or open carry and be able to perform a citizen's arrest?

Because

1. They didn't see him commit a crime

And 2. Citizen's Arrest isn't the right to become a superhero, it's the right to detain someone against their will until the police arrive

If the guy has run away then it's up to the police. Not you.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Because

1. They didn't see him commit a crime

And 2. Citizen's Arrest isn't the right to become a superhero, it's the right to detain someone against their will until the police arrive

If the guy has run away then it's up to the police. Not you.

To first point, law states witness crime or have immediate knowledge of one.

In Georgia you can pursue if you witness or have probable cause of a felony. Yes i know no felony was commited before you say that.

Anyways heres good ol alt right Joe Rogans hot take. Surprising amount of false info put forth in the video. Shoulda had Jamie google a bit imo. Doubly comical contrasted with their baseless implications the shooting was racially motivated as they lightly mock and perpetuate stereotypes of white southerners. Classic

https://youtu.be/pFk9mDK3PuIpFk9mDK3PuI

Keith_Valentine posted...

To first point, law states witness crime or have immediate knowledge of one.

They didn't have that either.

And that crime has to be murder or rape, not theft.

It's so fucking dumb
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

They didn't have that either.

And that crime has to be murder or rape, not theft.

It's so fucking dumb

One could argue they did, he illegally entered an empty home and fled when confronted. They knew about this thats why the dad called the cops. Neighbors were texting each other I believe.

Your second point is false.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Because

1. They didn't see him commit a crime

And 2. Citizen's Arrest isn't the right to become a superhero, it's the right to detain someone against their will until the police arrive

If the guy has run away then it's up to the police. Not you.

Just so its clear, I was answering a general question of how its possible. Not the application to why these guys did it or the specific case and if it will be deemed lawful.

The question was how you can chase someone with a gun and it be citizens arrest. None of those things are illegal in specific locations.

Lets pretend for a second the only difference in this whole case was that Arbery actually committed a felony they saw, given all other things that happened being the same...its still a fair question how they could chase someone with guns in a truck. I answered based on everything they did as if it were allowed under specific conditions being met, the law allows it. Which to some is still crazy to think about.

Its like saying, How can someone do drugs. Some people will never understand smoking weed, taking oxy, etc. If the answer is they meet the legal requirements to be allowed to take those drugs, thats how.

Youre arguing a blanket statement the person didnt meet those conditions. When I didnt say they did or didnt...just how someone could be allowed to do it and be within the law.

---

Conker posted...

Lets pretend for a second the only difference in this whole case was that Arbery actually committed a felony they saw,

If they had seen Arbery murder someone then their actions become understandable.

But that didn't happen
---

For reference, this is the quote/question being discussed.

How is chasing someone in a truck with a gun citizens arrest? It's just not. Whether or not the victim was a criminal is irrelevant. You chased him down in a truck with a gun while screaming at him. You are the aggressor

Having a gun and chasing someone in a truck, in and of itself, I was saying doesnt disqualify you from making a citizens arrest. It seems you think/thought it did and are now changing your meaning because you dont like my answer.

UnfairRepresent posted...

If they had seen Arbery murder someone then their actions become understandable.

But that didn't happen

JFC, why is this so hard to grasp. Im answering your general question of how chasing someone in a truck with guns can be citizens arrest. Thats what you asked.

You said that it cant be because theyd be the aggressor.

I answered how it can be because none of those things disqualify you from performing a citizens arrest and being the aggressor is what someone has to be to stop someone.

Having a gun, chasing someone, and yelling at the person are all allowed in a citizens arrest without being an unnecessary aggressor.

Your question youre now changing to mean, Were they even able to perform a citizens arrest. If they couldnt do that, were they legally allowed to carry guns in a truck while following and yelling at someone? Which isnt the same as you questioning how that can be allowed in a citizens arrest.

---

I cannot imagine spending effort and an inordinate amount of time attempting to defend and justify what was essentially a modern day lynching.

---

Conker posted...

JFC, why is this so hard to grasp. Im answering your general question of how chasing someone in a truck with guns can be citizens arrest. Thats what you asked.

Are you trolling?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

If they had seen Arbery murder someone then their actions become understandable.

But that didn't happen

He wasnt saying that or defending their actions. If anything he was criticizing the law even further.

It seems like you are just trying to argue and not even reading his posts fully.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Are you trolling?

No, are you?

So Im assuming youre trying to now change from suggesting the open carry and chase while becoming the aggressor wasnt what you were suggesting disqualifies them from citizens arrest.

So youre trolling.

The question was never what you originally said then and your intentions were just to argue semantics.

Got it.

---

That's a yes then

Good to know
---

You literally said:

Whether or not the victim was a criminal is irrelevant.

So I suggested even if they were, how those things you say they arent allowed to do for a citizens arrest would still not apply.

So now youre going to act like it was never about the chase, guns, yelling, or being the aggressor to you since you ignored all of that to say its not allowed in a citizens arrest.

Even though, it is all allowed in a citizens arrest.

Holy fuck dude. If its not about whether the person actually is a criminal or not, then wtf else would it be about. Since I attempted to say IF they were a criminal, and you still dont believe those same actions would be allowed. WTF are you wanting or meaning to ask!?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's a yes then

Good to know

You made several false claims, ignored me when i corrected you, and deliberately misconstrued Conkers posts to argue points no one made. Then you call him a troll? Thats tacky in a topic like this, and we made a mistake by taking you seriously.

Keith_Valentine posted...

You made several false claims

Name 7
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Name 7

Several means more than two. Stop while youre behind.

Lol knew you couldn't do it.

You two are so fucking full of it.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Lol knew you couldn't do it.

You two are so fucking full of it.

Why are you choosing to ignore anything I responded about and deflect to this bullshit? Honestly, you devolved it to trolling. Nobody else.

---